David Pratt wrote at 2005-9-21 13:38 -0300:
If I wanted to configure with multiple zodb
>for a single ZEO server you say there may be a possible downside in
>requiring a single ZEO server per database instance further down the
>road. Is this something that is currently planned so I don't implement
>something that will not be supported later?
This was discussed on a zope mailing list (I think "firstname.lastname@example.org").
Please search the archives (via your favorite search engine).
>It could be also be a bit
>of a problem since each ZEO server requires its own RAM. RAM is a
ZEO is not very RAM hungry.
Only for packing, a higher amount of RAM is necessary.
>My goal is to ensure that customers I work with are working exclusively
>in their own zodb. It seems preferable for these zodb's to be
>associated with a single ZEO server (instead of each zodb mounted in a
>single zope instance) to make maintenance tasks smooth and handled
Does this not speak for one ZEO server per customer?
Imagine, you must restore a storage for one customer (because he
destroyed its content).
With a single ZEO server, you must bring it down to activate
the backup. All your customers are affected.
With a separate ZEO for each customer -- you bring
down the ZEO for this customer. All others are unaffected.
>I realize that if resources were
>unlimited, it would be best for a single ZEO server to use a single
>zodb and have one or more ZEO clients.
Huch? I do not understand that argument.
With unlimited resources, each customer had its own computer
with its own ZEO and ZEO clients...
>I guess I see the possibility of single ZEO for a number of virtual
>hosted sites as a plus (since it means also that I could add additional
>ZEO clients to provide more threads for serving the group of virtual
But for this, it does not matter whether you have one or
many ZEO servers...
Zope maillist - Zope@zope.org
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -